I’m sorry, but for $600, I’m probably more likely to spend the extra $300 and pick up the Sigma 1.4.

phil

The DX version costs $200.
The FX version is definitely not worth more than $300 – not when it looks like the same cheap plastic crap that the DX version is.

Dpablo unfiltered

Because you shot it. A DX will work perfect on your camera.

T

The DX version is actually a nice lens and super sharp, even though it’s made of plastic.
Try putting it on your FX body. A little vignetting wide open but otherwise no problem and $400 cheaper than the new one. Also it weighs nothing.

If the 35/1.8 have the same transmission as nikons other f1.8 lenses (like 28/1.8G, 50/1.8G and 85/1.8G) there will only be a 1/3 stop advantage in actual light through the lens.
We can only speculate at this point, but the lens design on the 35/1.8G looks very promising, I wouldn’t expect the sharpness to be “soft”

Slight sloppy research from my part.
I did the comparison with a D800, which have a slight lower transmission on lenses.
But on the DXO measurement page for transmission, the sigma is actually on 0.4 ev, the rest on 0.3. 0.5 ev on the D800 0.3-0.4 on the other lenses.
So the light difference is more closer to 1/2 stop.

Dpablo unfiltered

It’s 2/3 of a stop. Both lenses have lower T values than their said F stop value. What it will come to is how sharp the new lens is. If you care about bokeh you can open the sigma wider and get a little more but then you have to remember that the kind of bokeh you get with it kind of sucks. Assuming the new Nikon lens is consistent or better with the lenses it has released in the past it will be quality vs quantity. I’m not biased either way.

Marcel Speta

i love Sigma’s output, but was hoping that Nikon will be lighter and smaller and cheaper (actually have 35/f2). I will wait and look on sample photos. Bokeh and sharpness are major things i will be comparing. 599,95 is just start price and i am sure it will drop to 499 soon. 450$ is already OK for me. If Nikkor will be far worst than Sigma, then Sigma is the winner…..

Rock Kenwell

Yeah right!
See Nikon 28mm 1.8G price since it was released!

dgr

The Sigma version is a nice lens but just like this new Nikon 35 it won’t be for everyone. I personally would prefer to save the weight and money and get the Nikon.

Joven

The weight argument would be more of a concern for me if the Sigma weighed as much as a 300 2.8, but it’s probably not going to be enough for me care. I’m guessing that it’ll be about a 1/2-pound difference.

L

Weight is an issue for some people – when you work outside and carry the gear on your back all day, every 1/2-pound makes a difference.

Eric

Eh, most people are pansies too. Get the right strap, and you can carry a camera with grip and a heavy lens and not even know its there. I’ve done it for up to 12 hrs no problemo.

Theodoros Fotometria

Price suggests that the lens will be similar to 28mm f1.8 for both build and optical quality. Since Sigmas are known to may exhibit CPU compatibility issues with future cameras, if optical quality is as good or better than the 28mm f1.8, it will be a success for Nikon. Nikon users are expecting a good 35mm prime from the AI-s days.

silmasan

Most readers here seem to miss that it actually has an ED element. The 24/1.4G has two, the 28/1.8G and 35/1.4G have none.

Truth

Why not go buy a Sigma camera while your at it?

Pellevin

What kind of nonsense is that? The Sigma 35 is an awesome lense. Some people are just brand snobs and obviously threatened when someone else outperforms their hero. We should be thankful for companies like Sigma. They press the prices and give us more options to choose from. Lately their lenses have been high class.

Rock Kenwell

I would suggest waiting for Amazon’s Lighting Deal of Sigma 1.4 @ $699. But Sigma 1.4 I have is too heavy for me because 50mm 1.8G spoiled me for too long.

For Nikon going on sale for $425, look at 28mm 1.8G’s lowest price since release: only $100 off at one time.

If Sigma can sell 28mm 1.8 @ 65% of Nikon 28 1.8G, you can propose Sigma 35mm 1.8 FX at $390. Fine, make it plastic and a little more flare. Sigma probably is not interested in any more these cheapo market.

Duncan Dimanche

You don’t even know how it performs and yet you are already spitting in his face… I’m hopping that Nikon came up with an amazing lens.. and if not… well like you said

Joven

Spitting in whose face? There were samples released by Nikon and I wasn’t really impressed, but I’m still waiting for the independent reviews before I make a final verdict.

My point was for $300 more you can get one of the best 35mm lenses on the market right now.

So should we assume Nikon has a lot of old D3#00 sitting around if the price for the D3300 is so high? Maybe they want to move old stock before dropping the price to what many would expect for this line.

bob2

Nikon’s strategy is pretty much everybody else’s strategy–pay a premium for the latest and greatest, get a nice discount for the prior generation. Just like cellphones, TVs, computers, etc.

Per Thom Hogan, D3100 was a top seller THIS past Christmas–so yes, there’s a *bit* of old stock laying around. In many ways, it’s Nikon’s (and Canon’s) strategy to protect the low and mid market, by keeping the older generation stuff around for more price-sensitive customers.

FrenchGuy

Same marketing team as the DF for the 35mm!!

dgr

Maybe if they released a special edition version.

saywhatuwill

The 35mm is kind of expensive but I might replace my 35mm f/2 ais with this one. I already missed the flash sale on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 so this is as good as it’s going to get.

Arne

I own the Sigma and am more than happy. It is unbelievable sharp wide open even in the corners, and is my standard lens on the D800 ever since (before, it was the 24-70/2.8). The Sigma is kind of heavy and bulky, and I would only use another 35mm, if it is really compact. But this new AF-S isn’t. If I were you, I would keep the AiS as travel lens, and get the Sigma as an ultimate dream lens one day.

Michael Choong

Hi how is your experience on sigma af under dim light? I have a chance to borrow my friend’s sigma fit on my d800, but af under hotel room dim lighting almost no perfect in focus pic. In the mean time those modern nikon lens like 28 1.8g always work better in such condition.
When i need f1.4 it always under dim condition, but the sigma cant get sharp af..

unumbskull

lol at cheapskates thinking the siggy 35/1.4 is an otus. lol genius, it’s a cheap generic lens, that is sharp like all primes, samyang for example. the siggy 35 has a HORRIBLE rendering. it looks cheap.

phil

your comments have a horrible rendering too, troll

Spy Black

You accidentally placed a u in front of your name…

bob2

With Sigma it is save a few bucks now, pay for it later.

My own personal experience (and lots of reports) of terrible quality control from Sigma–terrible AF, near focusing (so bad it cannot be fixed); decentered elements; shoddy construction. Then there’s lack of service–once the lens has been discontinued, good luck trying to get it fixed or geting parts for it. There’s also poor resale value–it just absolutely gets hammered. And there’s poor reliability and durability. Corners get cut where the consumer doesn’t see it–thinner parts, etc. all to save weight/money, but all affecting durability. And, since Sigma is an unwelcome guest of Nikon, Canon, et al., there’s always compatibility issues–AF and metering; the same lens may meter and AF acceptably on one model, but perform terribly on another. And no, it’s not Nikon’s fault–if you buy aftermarket car parts and it screws up the car, do you blame the car maker?

Sigma has always made specialty lenses with high specifications at attractive prices. But it’s the execution where it fails for the above reasons, consistently. Every time I think about getting another Sigma, I pick up the two Sigmas (one MF and another AF) that I have, and it reminds me of why I stick with Nikon.

Jojo

Oh my god u pathetic brand nerds. I have had some crappy Nikon lenses. Some great ones. The same goes for Sigma. But now most of my lenses are Sigmas they really got their act together lately. What they have done in the past is irrellevant, their new glass is simply awesome and much better value for money than the Nikon equivalents. And yes I am a Nikon fan boy. I have only use Nikon cameras for the last ten years, but that does not mean that I am a brand blinded fool.

jec6613

The 18-55 has the connection for a bayonet mounted hood, so does this mean that the filter threads don’t rotate, either, and it’s an IF/RF lens? One can only hope!

steviec

Wondering the same too, but seeing there isn’t a separate MF ring, one has to conclude that the front element takes this role. Having a bayonet mount doesn’t necessarily preclude a rotating front end. Probably a barrel (not petal) lens hood. That being said, I doubt many in the target market would use MF that often anyways. The lens does look considerably smaller.

The button is likely for the zoom lock (note the “L” position on the lens barrel). I’d guess that there’s an MF ring on the barrel that’s revealed once the lens is unlocked — and it might mean the entire barrel rotates.

archer12

I prefer Nikon 35mm 1.8 over Sigma 1.4 because of its weight. Sigma is too much heavy for hiking.

De Mentia

You can’t be serious.

skyrfox

yeah..good joke..take some adidas instead of boots when you are hiking and see if u like :)))

Shepherd

Trail runners and minimalist hiking shoes are very popular amongst long-distance hikers, and boots are definitely less common than shoes these days. Weight savings in shoes are noticeable substantially more than weight savings in one’s backpack, but when hiking hundreds of miles or more you will notice the half-pound weight difference between two lenses. I would prefer slower and lighter primes for a long-distance hike, if choosing between lenses of the same focal length. The heavier lens would have to be very special to receive consideration. Having a DSLR and even just having mediocre lenses would provide much greater image quality than photos most other hikers would be taking with their phones or GoPros or other point-and-shoot cameras.

mikeswitz

Fuji

http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

It better be exceptional at that price or else Sigma is going to eat it’s lunch.

YS

Huh, a collapsible 18-55mm lens. Maybe this Nikon’s current strategy with regards to DX mirrorless. Shrink the lenses and bodies instead.

Mike

They just took the concept from Nikon 1 lenses. It will be attractive to mom’s upgrading to a DSLR but don’t want a “big lens”.

AngloSaxonDNA

Nikon, still the best there is.

Spy Black

At screwing themselves up.

kab

Not very attractive

Jon McGuffin

Boo, no nano crystal coating on that 35mm as it should for that price. Nikon again seems to (barely) miss the sweet spot mark to bring to their customers what they want which, in my opinion, is probably that 35mm for $499 or a better optically unit with Nano coating for the $599 they are asking here. As is being pointed out, the Sigma 1.4 at just a couple hundred bucks more will likely give so much more bang for the buck.

unumbskull

no nano on the siggy either, mate

Joven

Seriously, stop being a troll, there are enough of them on the internet, try being original. Of course the Sigma doesn’t have something that is specific to Nikon. That’s like saying the Sigma doesn’t have VR. Just b/c they don’t use same branding, doesn’t mean there isn’t an equivalent. Sigma use its Super Multi-Layer Coating instead of Nano.

lord eels

well he’s got a point there, and you really don’t.

just sayin

ron

what is the extra benefit of the 35mm 1.8, other than its for FX?

Mike

It’s cheaper than their $1600 35 1.4. And better optically than the 35 f/2 Af-D (I’ll assume). It’s probably lighter than Sigma’s version too, and a touch cheaper. For some, even $200-$300 extra to get a Sigma is too much or more than they want to spend. This will hit a sweet spot to a lot of people.

Mike

Also, it’s more flexible at crossing the DX-FX platform if someone is using dual systems.

Pat Mann

And for the FX, it’s a wideangle lens that covers the full frame without excessive vignetting. Those would be two pretty clear benefits to me.
If you’re shooting DX, less vignetting and probably a bit less distortion on the DX format than the DX 35, but probably no other significant benefits – I’d go for the DX given the price and its excellent reputation.

Pat Mann

Guess I’ll wait for the rebates on the 35

Frod

Will wait for price attrition on the 35mm. Too close to my 28 for the money asked.

Ichim Dorin Cristian

But will it have video 1080p for 30 fps ? The D3200’s video shoot was horrid.

George Kalogeris

1080/60p should be the minimum standard in a 2014 DSLR.
Preferably at 50mbps and clean HDMI signal

Ichim Dorin Cristian

Well of course, it wouldnt be my main filming camera, but still, i was let down by this feature in D3200, so for now, thats what wouldnt let me buy it. It was clear if only by watching uploaded full hd clips on youtube.

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

hmm.. I wonder if this new 18-55 comes with a lens hood? Theres an attachment rail for a hood anyway.
I was expecting 499 for the 35/1.8, but 599 is still good, I’m getting one.

Spy Black

Looks like the 18-55 is optically identical.Six bucks for the 35? Just get a used D and call it a day.

rkas

The D aint that good thou. Hopefully this G is on par with the DX G, but without the vinjetting on FX.

Spy Black

It ain’t $600 either

unumbskull

photography is not for poor/cheap people

get a new hobby

Drazen B

Your name says it all.

Spy Black

Says who, a guy who repeats his own name to himself?

Marc W.

It probably is. The f2D sucks. (ok, mybe not sucks) I sold mine and got the Ai-S version. mucho bettero.

T

The D kind of sucks. I’d rather use the 35 1.8 DX lens, the vignetting is actually not terrible above 2.8 on an FX body

silmasan

Damn. Six hundred. Gotta see its sample images first. Hopeful for something creamier than other current 35/1.4 options (Nikon’s own inclulded).

lord eels

wow $600 is a lot for you while you demand performance that trumps a $1700 lens? how cute.

silmasan

Not “trumps”, just “creamier”. But thanks. I’m sure you are cute too.

Jeff Curtner

The collapsible design of the new 18-55 is quite obvious when comparing to the old design side-by-side.

Spy Black

I dunno. One more thing to do before you can shoot a shot. Could cost you that shot. Nikon 1 technology is counterproductive on Nikon1s, more so on a DSLR.

stoooopid

yeah, there is a chance it could cost you a shot. But for me what is more likely to cost me a shot is not taking my dslr along because it is too big and bulky. I like this new lens. I also have the J1 and V1 with these collapsing lenses. Overall, not bad after you get used to them. And the size savings really helps when making a decision of whether or not to bring my “good” camera.

bob2

Just keep the lens extended and ready to use. Likely the same length as the regular kit lens when extended.

You’ll run into the same problem with ALL collapsible kit lenses–my Olympus m43 won’t let me shoot unless the kit lens is extended too. Having used collapsible kit lenses, I find it more of a sales gimmick rather than a real benefit.

Drazen B

Smaller – yes, but far from the compactness most of us were expecting to see with this new lens. Nikon touted it 2 weeks ago as a super-compact 18-55 kit lens. Sorry, I just don’t see it like that.

Dave Woods

Nikon really missed the mark on the price on the 35mm. Pass for me. I’ll just stick with my 28 1.8. I was hoping for 399.99 but would have paid 499.99.

Tommy

This new 35 is very disappointing. Much too big and expensive.

Andrzej Lukowiec

But on par with current Nikkor lineup…

pyktures

the 85 1.8G is priced around the same price-range and is said by many (and myself) to be sharper than the 1.4G. Considering that the 35 1.8G might be sharper than the 1.4G (thus better than Sigma), 600$ is pocket change

Pablo Ricasso

“the 85 1.8G is priced around the same price-range and is said by many (and myself) to be sharper than the 1.4G.”

Not quite. I own and shoot both and there is still a difference in sharpness. My portrait photos are also noticeably more contrasty and punchier with the f/1.4.

Horses for courses.

Dpablo unfiltered

A better example might have been the Nikon 50 mm lenses…

lord eels

only to delusional cheapskates is the 1.8 “sharper” than the 1.4. the 85/1.4 is in a different universe than the 1.8 for shooting people. I own both. I use the 1.8 for panorama deep in the bush, other than that it pretty 2nd rate

Tom

surprise! it looks like a nikon DSLR and a nikon lens!

phil

to be fair, that DX lens looks like a CX lens…

ss

What is the L on the 18-55mm lens?

Daniel

L stands for luxury

Marc W.

No, Lomo

nikon

It means “lock”, like on the Nikon 1 lenses

Marc W.

As I said in another post, I think it applies to comments being made here:

Ok, let me setup most comments I read on NR *ahem*:

I can’t believe they are going to release ________. We ALL are
waiting for ________ and if Nikon doesn’t release those in January I’m
selling all my Nikon gear for _________.

Andrzej Lukowiec

for Olympus

saywhatuwill

Funny thing is that people are dumping their Nikon gear to get the Sony A7R.

zoetmb

I have to admit that when I played with the Sony at a trade show, it was really nice to handle such a small and lightweight camera. But slow AF, an electronic viewfinder isn’t always ideal and not enough lenses as yet. But I’ll be looking very closely at the next model in a year or two, especially if Nikon doesn’t come out with a pro-featured, but small and lightweight body and lenses first.

Every time I drag around my camera case, with four lenses, the D800, a flash and other accessories, I pray for another solution. Maybe I should just hire an assistant.

saywhatuwill

I went to the Sony store at a local mall and it felt that everyone was hanging out by the A7 and A7R. In fact one guy who was holding his child stood there for literally 10 minutes playing with the camera. I wanted to stick my SD card in the camera and take a few test photos, but I ended up leaving because that guy was playing for it for so long. I came back about a 15 minutes later hoping he was gone and thankfully he was. I took some photos with the camera and the output was pretty nice. Not sure I’ll give up my Nikon D700 and the lenses for it just yet though.

lord eels

it’s a slow cramped camera with no lenses and no speedlights.

Marc W.

Hey, that’s no problem, at least they are talking with their money, not with their fingers.

ShakyLens

Yeah, people are dumping their comprehensive Nikon systems for a totally new and unproven system with less than a handful of native lenses. Sure…

Bellend

Wait to see what the images are like with the 35mm. It must have amazing optics wide open to justify the price. If not, this along with the DF does make me wonder how much more lost Nikon will get.

saywhatuwill

Wasn’t Nikon already quoted as saying, and I paraphrase, “we will focus on high profit items and will gouge the consumer whenever we can.”

SeikoLiz

This. It was in an open statement of their redirected business ethos for the new fiscal year. Specifically it was a higher profit margin combined with retraction from build quality. So expect lots of plastic and non-nano coated glass sold at prices points traditionally reserved for metal, nano coated lenses.

I’m sure the 35mm f/1.8 FX is just fine in the end, just not as hardy, certainly not for the price. Personally I think it looks like the old 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII, which sort of adds to the sense of “this is pretty cheap”.

ShakyLens

Everyone said this about the 28 1.8G when it came out, now it is a popular well-regarded lens. Roger’s Law of New Product Introductions at work again.

Bellend

In not so many words. Probably. But it’s a dangerous game to play since the competition have seriously upped their game. If the optics of this lens are not at least very good, I fail to see why you wouldn’t pay the bit extra for the Sigma. Now, if Nikon had priced this at $300 that would be a different situation.

d800e_shooter

I’m glad I picked up the sigma 35/1.4 for US$699 on amazon from their instant deals….

d800e_shooter

for $599 the Nikon is a lost cause. Nano-coating has became (almost) the only meaningful differentiator between Nikon and Sigma lenses, not to mention the sigma being a stop faster. The Nikkor would likely only have half the weight which is good.

ShakyLens

Another differentiator would be AF that is actually reliable and works with all the system’s features like the AF assist light, works with all current and future bodies, and come from the factory without major calibration issues. 100% of Sigma lenses I have personally owned showed these issues (including a 35 1.4)

unumbskull

sigma AF performance is so horrible. you won’t be wondering why that generic lens is so cheap when you miss focus constantly. what’s the point of f/1.4 if you can’t reliably hit focus there. if you don’t have reliable AF you don’t have anything.

d800e_Shooter

for toddlers and running kids the sigma 35/1.4 AF seemed to work okay so far for me.
It is actually the only non-Nikon lens that I have … I own 5 out of the 6 f/2.8 and f/4 trinity zooms.

lord eels

peep this guy bragging about slow f4 zooms. lol buddy slow f4 zooms are a trap. a trap like generic prime lenses. if you think the wide open AF hit rate is the same on the sigma 35, no surprise. you have a d800. you can’t reliably hit focus with anything. lol!!!!!

MikeKelley

I did the same. The Sigma 34 F1.4 is the best 35 on the market. I can’t see Nikon releasing a 35 F1.8 with better optics and for less money than their own high end 35 F1.4.

Dpablo unfiltered

Their high end lens is old. They will release another one when they have one ready to beat the Sigma lens. I suspect that this one is ready. It’s much easier to make a slow lens.

CRB

I wonder if im going to be 80 before seeing a 35mm eq for DX…

stormwatch

Ok, finally something reasonable from the Nikon’s kitchen after that Df stupidity.

Raul

Haha! Some people are still mad because they can’t afford a Df.

stormwatch

You Sir are the spot on, I can’t afford trowing money into the junk.

Pixyst

I got the Sigma at 699 – glad I pulled the trigger. I really enjoy that lens!

peterw

Nikkor 35 F1,8 AF-S FX looks more like it has the built quality of the horrible 28 F1,8 AF-S (yes, which has very fine optics).
I still hope I see this wrong and it is built like the 85 F1,8 AF-S. All of them plastic, but such a big difference.

What do you think?

Well, the alternative is great (and heavy)

pj

For that price it should have nano coating and a solid build quality. I’m not surprised by the price but I am a bit disappointed. I’m more worried about the size though. I was really hoping for something tiny like the old 35/2–it’s hard to tell if this is really much smaller than the 28/1.8G or my Zeiss 35/2.

At the risk of being accused of trolling, I’ll agree with the few other voices on here and say I wasn’t blown away by the Sigma. I found the AF to be less reliable than the Nikon 28/1.8G (for example) and the rendering just doesn’t suit me, though that is a personal opinion only. It’s a very sharp lens for sure.

I also worry about the build quality of this new Nikkor. While my 28/1.8G is tack sharp, it feels like a cheap kit lens and there is way too much slop in the focus ring. I’d gladly pay $599 for a lens with a solid build quality and nano coating.

I’ll try this one out when my shop gets it in stock, but I may just stick with Zeiss from now on.

D

I can’t find any specs online re: size and weight for the new 35mm. Why do we think it’s so big?

saywhatuwill

Look a little further down in the news on nikonrumors. It shows that it’ll be 11 ounces. It’s pretty heavy.

It would be great if it were a bit cheaper, but Canon’s aging 35mm f2 is $599 and not particularly well-regarded, so Nikon’s pricing is hardly unreasonable — assuming the lens performs; and it’s about a third the price of Nikon’s 35mm f1.4. Nikon offers a cheaper 35mm lens for those who prefer to keep $200 at the cost of sharpness. Finally, it’s kind of tiresome for people to equate “big and heavy and made of metal” with build quality. I’ve got the 85mm f1.8 and the build quality is just fine, and it’s tiny and light as a feather. People pay a huge amount of money for bicycles and cars made out of high-tech plastic.

Maybe we’ll see a nice ultrawide prime now (a replacement for the 20mm AF-D).

pj

True. Don’t get me wrong I appreciate lightweight lenses. But there is a real difference in build quality between my 28/1.8G and my 85/1.8G. The former has a ton of slop in the focus ring, and I actually tried five of them so I don’t think it’s just a bad copy. Obviously it doesn’t matter for AF, but I sometimes like magnified LV focusing and the slop is annoying in that case.

One of the brand new USA version 28/1.8G’s bought from B&H had marks on the inside of the front element. Of course I returned it for another one but it makes me wonder about quality control.

I’ll probably buy the new 35 though. It’s my favorite focal length and even if it’s not smaller, it’s probably lighter than my Zeiss and better matched to the look of my 28G and 50/1.4G, both of which I prefer to their respective Zeiss ZF counterparts.

ShakyLens

You’re confusing “badly assembled” (build quality) with “cheaply designed”. The latter is what the 28 1.8G is. It is most definitely not badly assembled, otherwise there would be variability between different copies of the same lens. It’s an important distinction and I’m sick of hearing this ‘build quality’ nonsense bandied around without any apparent understanding of what it means. Get it right.

peterw

‘cheaply designed’ could apply also to optical quality. Please help non-natives with a better suggestion.

In my own language the translation of ‘build quality’ could mean both design, materials and assemblage.

peterw

go find a 28 F1,8 AF-S and feel for yourself.
The 85 is nice. the 28 isn’t.
I hope the 35 is like the 85, but it looks more like the 28.
We don’t know yet.

http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

I’ll take your and pj’s word for it. I’m not a huge fan of the 28mm focal length (love 35mm though) so I hope the 35mm is like the 85 and that Nikon updates the 20mm.

koenshaku

I was not impressed with the reviews of the 35mm 1.4 Nikon or Sigma to be honest, so I hope this 1.8 corrects those issues as the 50mm 1.8 did for the 50mm 1.4 and it would be a no brainer to pick it up.

decisivemoment

Unless the build quality is SUBSTANTIALLY better than the 28, I’ll be suspicious of this one. At this price it seems to me to be an instant rebate-only product.

Flash

How about putting up a list of Nikon cameras showing the pecking order ? Like top to bottom end of dlr’s I am so confused now with all the these 4 digit models out now, I can’t tell now which one suits my purposes now. I have a D300s &
I’d like to up grade, but to what ? Seems no info out there really ?

Oh Nikon what are you doing? Why didn’t you ask me or your fan boys…That is too much for so little..but wait..Nikon you can make it up with your over priced and not needed…Df and 58mm 1.4. Yeah I believe in you Nikon! Idiots.

qcofoto

I’ve a dx 35 1,8G And never get out of my d800, yes it have a little vignette but the !!new!! Most be 300 time better, this is me

qcofoto

This is a screen shot from iPad, JPEG from nikon with worst quality possible

Andrzej Lukowiec

… and it says… 50mm, So where is 35mm???

Morris

ok next ?

Aldo

wow 600 bucks… what was that “sit on shelf” ? I’ll wait for a used one @ 400.

NAq

It seems to be really straightforward, that the announcement of Nikkor 35mm 1.8 FX lens is highly correlated with the Sigma “A” 35mm 1.4. Watch for the ED mark on the lens barrel: It can be promising, because we can hope picture quality on par with the Sigma one, in a much more lightweight package.

Aldo

Body only price for d5300? errr d3300?

JosengSisiw1

Now i can sell my sigma 35 as this is a damn heavy lens, considering the high quality and sturdiness of plastics nowadays. Its more enjoyable to take pictures all day in light lenses than carrying this tank like heavy metals. I believed nikon is doing the right thing on building lenses with hi tech lightweight materials than sticking on this old notion of heavy is hi quality. I wish they can use more of this in their pro cameras.

Marcel Speta

hm… sounds logical. If they can make really light supertele lenses (doesn’t matter if plastic as long as it is sturdy enough) that would be awesome.
I am dreaming about 600mm/4 lens having about 2,5kg !!